Friday, May 20, 2016
Megan Kelly and Donald Trump
The only thing I will say about Megyn Kelly's absurd interview the other night with Donald Trump on Fox -- in which each tried to prove how more powerful than the other they were -- is: why ask questions if one is not prepared to follow through? When Kelly asked Trump his favorite movie and Trump said "Citizen Kane" Kelly did not follow up at all, when she easily could have asked what he liked about that movie about a powerful man who was his own worst enemy and treated the women in his life badly (I would not expect any appreciation of its innovative style from either person) When she asked his favorite book he said "All Quiet on the Western Front" and again she did not follow up, when she could easily have asked why someone as militaristic and belligerent as he is liked Remarque's novel about WWI, perceived by many as anti-war. My educated guess is that Trump has not seen Welles's movie or read Remarque's book and, judging by Kelly's non-response to each of Trump's answers she has not seen the movie or read the book either!
Monday, May 9, 2016
The Good Wife 2009-2016
The Good Wife may be the last of its kind, the last TV show that has 22 episodes a year of relatively high quality. All credit to Robert and Michelle King, who created the show and stayed with it from beginning to end (they wrote and directed the final episode). And all credit to Julianna Margulies, who stayed with the show for its entire run, with her plastic surgery being done gradually so that her blank and relatively inexpressive face helped to express her isolation at the end of the show, when she was left without her boyfriend, her best friend, her husband (a divorce at last) and children (off to college).
When I was growing up TV shows had the same characters but plots did not generally overlap from episode to episode. This all changed with Hill Street Blues, Steven Bochco's show that started in 1981 and was followed by high-quality shows such as L.A. Law, ER and The West Wing. The rise of these shows coincided with the rise of the VCR and the internet: if you missed a show you might have a friend who taped it or you might be able to watch it on-line. No more graduation ceremonies postponed so that everyone could watch the finale of MASH. Now we even have "on demand" for most shows; one doesn't even need a DVR or internet connection (though one cannot fast forward through the commercials.
Alicia Florick, Margulies character, was intelligent and resilient, especially in her work as an attorney. Her real love was lawyer Will Gardner (played by Josh Charles), who died in season five and whom she never stopped loving. One of the reasons the show was able to remain lively was the regular introduction of new characters, including a new partner for Alicia (Lucca, played by Cush Jumbo) and a new boyfriend (Jason, played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan) in the final season. And the writing was always excellent, with detailed and interesting legal cases and constant battles among the lawyers.
When I was growing up TV shows had the same characters but plots did not generally overlap from episode to episode. This all changed with Hill Street Blues, Steven Bochco's show that started in 1981 and was followed by high-quality shows such as L.A. Law, ER and The West Wing. The rise of these shows coincided with the rise of the VCR and the internet: if you missed a show you might have a friend who taped it or you might be able to watch it on-line. No more graduation ceremonies postponed so that everyone could watch the finale of MASH. Now we even have "on demand" for most shows; one doesn't even need a DVR or internet connection (though one cannot fast forward through the commercials.
Alicia Florick, Margulies character, was intelligent and resilient, especially in her work as an attorney. Her real love was lawyer Will Gardner (played by Josh Charles), who died in season five and whom she never stopped loving. One of the reasons the show was able to remain lively was the regular introduction of new characters, including a new partner for Alicia (Lucca, played by Cush Jumbo) and a new boyfriend (Jason, played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan) in the final season. And the writing was always excellent, with detailed and interesting legal cases and constant battles among the lawyers.
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Taking Trump Seriously, Commentary, May 2016
With Meet John Doe, Frank Capra crossed the thin line between populist sentimentality and populist demagoguery.
--Andrew Sarris, The American Cinema,(University of Chicago Press 1968)
Commentary has taken the trouble, in their current issue, to take Donald Trump's policies seriously and analyze them in detail. The conclusions:
On Trade. After a detailed analysis of Trump's plans to impose high tariffs and to withdraw from all U.S. trade agreements (and the difficulties with implementation) Scott Lincicome writes: "We have many existing examples of how Trump-style tariffs have resulted in lower growth, higher prices, foreign retaliation and few, if any, new jobs."
On Taxes. James Pethokoukis looks at Trump's tax plans and concludes, "It features cuts so large that any growth they generate might get swallowed by unprecedented debt increases. It supposedly tries to sock it to the undeserving wealthy but will actually reduce their tax burden."
On "The Wall." Linda Chavez looks at the building of a wall across the border with Mexico and concludes it would cost 17 billion dollars, even if all the difficulties with eminent domain and environmental impact problems can be overcome, slowing down the building of the wall for decades. Trump's plan to remove all illegal immigrants in two years would cost $300 billion and, even then, "there is no evidence that Americans would rush to pick fruits and vegetables, de-bone chickens, scrub office floors and toilets, the jobs illegal immigrants currently dominate"
On Health Care. Tevi Troy points out that Trump is offering little that Cruz and others have not offered and (my own comment here) offers nothing for those currently without healthcare insurance or those who will lose it when Obamacare is repealed, as Trump wants to do.
On Infrastructure. Phillip Klein points out that Trump is big on building but has been vague on how he plans to pay for it (see On Taxes, above).
On Nato, On Asia, On Israel. Tod Linberg, Michael Auslin, Jordon Chandler Hirsch point out the risks and dangers of Trump's isolationist ideas. As Hirsch concludes: "A world in which the United States betrays bedrock alliances, cozies up with enemies, and raises the drawbridge is a world in which the Jewish state will struggle to endure."
For historical perspective I also recommend, in the same issue of Commentary, Terry Teachout's The Harbinger of Trumpism, about Sir Oswald Mosley (1896-1980), who in 1932 founded the British Union of Fascists. As Teachout says, "Anyone who seeks to understand how authoritarianism might become a force in America would thus do well to consider his spectacular rise -- and ignominious fall."
For novels that have, in various ways, written about the rise of populist fascism in America I suggest Sinclair Lewis's It Can't Happen Here (1935), Robert Penn Warren's All the King's Men (1945), and Philip Roth's The Plot Against America (2004). For a fascinating look into the evil heart of anti-Islamic fascism in Norway I recommend One of Us by Asne Seierstad (translated by Sarah Death).
--Andrew Sarris, The American Cinema,(University of Chicago Press 1968)
Commentary has taken the trouble, in their current issue, to take Donald Trump's policies seriously and analyze them in detail. The conclusions:
On Trade. After a detailed analysis of Trump's plans to impose high tariffs and to withdraw from all U.S. trade agreements (and the difficulties with implementation) Scott Lincicome writes: "We have many existing examples of how Trump-style tariffs have resulted in lower growth, higher prices, foreign retaliation and few, if any, new jobs."
On Taxes. James Pethokoukis looks at Trump's tax plans and concludes, "It features cuts so large that any growth they generate might get swallowed by unprecedented debt increases. It supposedly tries to sock it to the undeserving wealthy but will actually reduce their tax burden."
On "The Wall." Linda Chavez looks at the building of a wall across the border with Mexico and concludes it would cost 17 billion dollars, even if all the difficulties with eminent domain and environmental impact problems can be overcome, slowing down the building of the wall for decades. Trump's plan to remove all illegal immigrants in two years would cost $300 billion and, even then, "there is no evidence that Americans would rush to pick fruits and vegetables, de-bone chickens, scrub office floors and toilets, the jobs illegal immigrants currently dominate"
On Health Care. Tevi Troy points out that Trump is offering little that Cruz and others have not offered and (my own comment here) offers nothing for those currently without healthcare insurance or those who will lose it when Obamacare is repealed, as Trump wants to do.
On Infrastructure. Phillip Klein points out that Trump is big on building but has been vague on how he plans to pay for it (see On Taxes, above).
On Nato, On Asia, On Israel. Tod Linberg, Michael Auslin, Jordon Chandler Hirsch point out the risks and dangers of Trump's isolationist ideas. As Hirsch concludes: "A world in which the United States betrays bedrock alliances, cozies up with enemies, and raises the drawbridge is a world in which the Jewish state will struggle to endure."
For historical perspective I also recommend, in the same issue of Commentary, Terry Teachout's The Harbinger of Trumpism, about Sir Oswald Mosley (1896-1980), who in 1932 founded the British Union of Fascists. As Teachout says, "Anyone who seeks to understand how authoritarianism might become a force in America would thus do well to consider his spectacular rise -- and ignominious fall."
For novels that have, in various ways, written about the rise of populist fascism in America I suggest Sinclair Lewis's It Can't Happen Here (1935), Robert Penn Warren's All the King's Men (1945), and Philip Roth's The Plot Against America (2004). For a fascinating look into the evil heart of anti-Islamic fascism in Norway I recommend One of Us by Asne Seierstad (translated by Sarah Death).
Friday, April 15, 2016
Democratic Debate April 14, 2016
Hilary Clinton is beginning to annoy me:
1. Why won't she release the transcripts of her $250,000 speeches to Goldman-Sachs and others? Is there something like what David Corn and Mother Jones found in Romney's famous "47 percent" speech? And who are these other unnamed people who should also release transcripts? Bernie Sanders has no transcripts to release and even if Cruz and Trump do, so what? Does she really want to associate herself with those dissemblers?
2. In the early part of her campaign Clinton couldn't distance herself fast enough from Obama while last night, as Sanders pointed out, it was all "Obama this and Obama that." One wouldn't have to be particularly cynical to think that this change is because Obama's approval ratings are rising and Clinton is again shifting with the wind. Everything good that Obama has done was because of her advice and every mistake he made was because he didn't listen to her!
3.Clinton claims she has stood up against the insurance companies and the drug companies so why is she opposed to single-payer healthcare? She says she wants the remaining 10% of Americans covered but offers no suggestions how she will do this or how, if at all, she would bring down the costs for many of the poor who cannot afford what Obamacare costs or cannot afford the increasing co-pays. Her only defense --and this is true about other issues, too -- is that she wants to "avoid a contentious debate and forge a consensus." Good luck with that, it sounds to me like an abdication of authority.
4. Clinton claims to be sympathetic to the problem of student debt but she doesn't want free tuition for state colleges because there are too many Republican governors and that would provoke the dreaded "contentious debate."
5. Clinton deplores climate change but doesn't think we can do anything about it unless India and China can be convinced to change their policies. Meanwhile, she supports fracking and does not support a carbon tax.
6. Clinton is sorry about what happened in Libya but what could one do, they didn't want our help! She voted for the Iraq war -- Sanders voted against it -- and still doesn't seem to understand that getting rid of a ruthless dictator is fine as far as it goes but one has to have some kind of plan for what happens afterwards.
I wish both Sanders and Clinton would come more strongly to the defense of unions. Sanders at least made a point about Verizon and the CWA and the continuing erosion of the middle class as the power of unions has precipitously declined. I must admit I was a little confused during the discussion of guns: Clinton thinks that gun sellers and manufacturers should be responsible for what someone does with a gun even if that gun was sold legally? Sanders did not bring it up during this debate but his suggestion for single-payer healthcare, including mental healthcare, would likely be of more help than additional gun control, as much as that may also be needed.
1. Why won't she release the transcripts of her $250,000 speeches to Goldman-Sachs and others? Is there something like what David Corn and Mother Jones found in Romney's famous "47 percent" speech? And who are these other unnamed people who should also release transcripts? Bernie Sanders has no transcripts to release and even if Cruz and Trump do, so what? Does she really want to associate herself with those dissemblers?
2. In the early part of her campaign Clinton couldn't distance herself fast enough from Obama while last night, as Sanders pointed out, it was all "Obama this and Obama that." One wouldn't have to be particularly cynical to think that this change is because Obama's approval ratings are rising and Clinton is again shifting with the wind. Everything good that Obama has done was because of her advice and every mistake he made was because he didn't listen to her!
3.Clinton claims she has stood up against the insurance companies and the drug companies so why is she opposed to single-payer healthcare? She says she wants the remaining 10% of Americans covered but offers no suggestions how she will do this or how, if at all, she would bring down the costs for many of the poor who cannot afford what Obamacare costs or cannot afford the increasing co-pays. Her only defense --and this is true about other issues, too -- is that she wants to "avoid a contentious debate and forge a consensus." Good luck with that, it sounds to me like an abdication of authority.
4. Clinton claims to be sympathetic to the problem of student debt but she doesn't want free tuition for state colleges because there are too many Republican governors and that would provoke the dreaded "contentious debate."
5. Clinton deplores climate change but doesn't think we can do anything about it unless India and China can be convinced to change their policies. Meanwhile, she supports fracking and does not support a carbon tax.
6. Clinton is sorry about what happened in Libya but what could one do, they didn't want our help! She voted for the Iraq war -- Sanders voted against it -- and still doesn't seem to understand that getting rid of a ruthless dictator is fine as far as it goes but one has to have some kind of plan for what happens afterwards.
I wish both Sanders and Clinton would come more strongly to the defense of unions. Sanders at least made a point about Verizon and the CWA and the continuing erosion of the middle class as the power of unions has precipitously declined. I must admit I was a little confused during the discussion of guns: Clinton thinks that gun sellers and manufacturers should be responsible for what someone does with a gun even if that gun was sold legally? Sanders did not bring it up during this debate but his suggestion for single-payer healthcare, including mental healthcare, would likely be of more help than additional gun control, as much as that may also be needed.
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Republican Town Hall March 29, 2016
Anderson Cooper was a bit flummoxed in asking questions of the three candidates, as were the audience members who asked questions. Basically Cruz, Trump and Kasich paid little attention to the specifics of the questions and continued to stake out their by now well-established personae: Cruz is the right-wing ideologue who isn't too interested in the facts, Trump is the bully who wants to beat up on everyone and doesn't care about policy details because he "can always make a deal" and Kasich is the practical guy who can get things done and has the best chance of winning.
My favorite point in the "town hall" was when Trump was asked by an audience member what the three most important areas would be to him if he were elected. He said "national security" and then had trouble coming up with anything else, finally mentioning healthcare and education. Anderson Cooper was rendered almost speechless by this, finally saying that he thought Trump's position was that the federal government has no role in healthcare or education. Trump then admitted that that was correct, that "common core" should be abolished and education should be up to the states and healthcare should be left to private insurance companies, since we all know how well that has been working! Apparently Trump is only interested in two things: preventing women from getting abortions and putting other countries in their place.
Trump and Cruz continued bashing Muslims and immigrants while Kasich says we cannot just demonize whole groups of people. Kasich continued to be the most statesmanlike of the group (which is admittedly not saying much) and took the admirable Burkean position that one cannot make decisions with a finger in the wind of popularity, while Cruz and Trump praised themselves for not being "politically correct." All three candidates now have rescinded their pledge to support the Republican candidate, whoever he may be.
My favorite point in the "town hall" was when Trump was asked by an audience member what the three most important areas would be to him if he were elected. He said "national security" and then had trouble coming up with anything else, finally mentioning healthcare and education. Anderson Cooper was rendered almost speechless by this, finally saying that he thought Trump's position was that the federal government has no role in healthcare or education. Trump then admitted that that was correct, that "common core" should be abolished and education should be up to the states and healthcare should be left to private insurance companies, since we all know how well that has been working! Apparently Trump is only interested in two things: preventing women from getting abortions and putting other countries in their place.
Trump and Cruz continued bashing Muslims and immigrants while Kasich says we cannot just demonize whole groups of people. Kasich continued to be the most statesmanlike of the group (which is admittedly not saying much) and took the admirable Burkean position that one cannot make decisions with a finger in the wind of popularity, while Cruz and Trump praised themselves for not being "politically correct." All three candidates now have rescinded their pledge to support the Republican candidate, whoever he may be.
Friday, March 11, 2016
Democratic Debate March 9, Republican Debate March 10
The debates are starting to get a bit tedious, as each candidate continues to stake out their own territory. with little deviation. At least Cuba is now being discussed, as Bernie Sanders emphasizes what good Castro had done --especially with healthcare and education -- and Clinton emphasizes Castro's poor record on human rights. The Republicans agree that we did not "get a good deal" with Castro,, Trump in particular emphasizing what a great wheeler-dealer he is, who could get a good deal with everybody, including Israel and the Palestinians. Interesting, the two populist candidates --Sanders and Trump -- both are unhappy with our current trade deals, Trump saying that if other countries "don't behave" he would institute tariffs as high as 45%. I'm beginning to find Clinton's uneasy laughter a little creepy, as she continues to dodge the question of what she said to Goldman-Sachs. David Corn (who exposed Mitt Romney's secret speech to wealthy donors in which he referred to 47% of voters as "moochers"), where are you now?
Clinton says that 90% of the country now has health insurance and though she claims to believe in universal coverage she offers no plan to cover the other 10%. Sanders correctly points out that many of those who do have insurance do not get the medical care they need because of sky-high deductibles and co-payments. The Republicans all pledge to repeal Obamacare but the only suggestions any of them have to improve things are to allow insurance companies to sell across state lines! On immigration the Republicans are opposed to a path to citizenship while the Democrats are for it and Clinton continues to criticize Sanders for not supporting "Ted Kennedy's bill" even though Sanders has clearly stated that he considered the guest-worker provision of that bill "akin to slavery." Clinton also continues to harp on Sanders's vote against the import-export bill as Sanders continues to state that the money went mostly to Boeing and other profitable companies. Clinton's response is that since other countries help profitable companies so should we. Sanders continues to support single-payer healthcare and free tuition for state colleges, while Clinton's concern is that these policies would only cause "contentious debate."
Everyone continues to complain about the lack of increase in wages but no one suggests policies that would make it easier for workers to form and join unions (except for the long-departed Martin O'Malley), presumably because of the scapegoating of teachers' and other unions.
Clinton says that 90% of the country now has health insurance and though she claims to believe in universal coverage she offers no plan to cover the other 10%. Sanders correctly points out that many of those who do have insurance do not get the medical care they need because of sky-high deductibles and co-payments. The Republicans all pledge to repeal Obamacare but the only suggestions any of them have to improve things are to allow insurance companies to sell across state lines! On immigration the Republicans are opposed to a path to citizenship while the Democrats are for it and Clinton continues to criticize Sanders for not supporting "Ted Kennedy's bill" even though Sanders has clearly stated that he considered the guest-worker provision of that bill "akin to slavery." Clinton also continues to harp on Sanders's vote against the import-export bill as Sanders continues to state that the money went mostly to Boeing and other profitable companies. Clinton's response is that since other countries help profitable companies so should we. Sanders continues to support single-payer healthcare and free tuition for state colleges, while Clinton's concern is that these policies would only cause "contentious debate."
Everyone continues to complain about the lack of increase in wages but no one suggests policies that would make it easier for workers to form and join unions (except for the long-departed Martin O'Malley), presumably because of the scapegoating of teachers' and other unions.
Monday, March 7, 2016
Democratic Debate March 6
This debate revealed nothing particularly new. Hilary Clinton's evasions are starting to annoy me, I must admit. She did not address the question of whether bad teachers are protected by the union; they aren't, but why didn't Clinton answer the question directly? Is she afraid to lose the endorsement of the teachers' unions if she answers this question in a little more detail when, to so many parents, it is an important question? The same on fracking: she said she would institute (unspecified) regulations, while Sanders simply said he was opposed to it because of the environmental dangers. Is Clinton afraid to offend her fossil fuels contributors? Clinton continues to say that she will release the transcripts of her talks to Wall Street firms when others do. What others? Sanders has none to release and one would not expect the Republicans to release any, if there are some. And she continues to evade the question of why she has a super-PAC if the Wall Street contributors don't expect anything from her. Her response this time was that Obama also received a great deal of money from Wall Street; therefore it's okay? And she continues to evade questions about her e-mails; instead she attacks Trump for bringing them up.
When it comes to education Sanders once again proposed free state-college tuition, universal pre-K and more childcare, with better pay for childcare workers. Sanders continues to support single-payer healthcare while Clinton seems happy with 90% coverage and offers no plan to include the missing 10%. Both candidates would rebuild the infrastructure, though Sanders would invest more money in it. Clinton complained constantly about references to the 90's, contradicting her usual declarations that one should examine her record. Her record shows fairly clearly that she will shift with the wind, as she was constantly apologizing for previous comments and votes, from coded references to "super-predators" to her vote for the war in Iraq, though foreign policy was not discussed at all, perhaps because they were in Flint, Michigan, where the water supply is contaminated and foreign policy does not seem pressing. At the end of the debate the candidates were asked about God and Clinton gave a treacly response, not forgetting to include her usual reference to "God-given potential," while Sanders simply reaffirmed his Jewish background and simply stated that we should follow the golden rule that all religions have in common.
When it comes to education Sanders once again proposed free state-college tuition, universal pre-K and more childcare, with better pay for childcare workers. Sanders continues to support single-payer healthcare while Clinton seems happy with 90% coverage and offers no plan to include the missing 10%. Both candidates would rebuild the infrastructure, though Sanders would invest more money in it. Clinton complained constantly about references to the 90's, contradicting her usual declarations that one should examine her record. Her record shows fairly clearly that she will shift with the wind, as she was constantly apologizing for previous comments and votes, from coded references to "super-predators" to her vote for the war in Iraq, though foreign policy was not discussed at all, perhaps because they were in Flint, Michigan, where the water supply is contaminated and foreign policy does not seem pressing. At the end of the debate the candidates were asked about God and Clinton gave a treacly response, not forgetting to include her usual reference to "God-given potential," while Sanders simply reaffirmed his Jewish background and simply stated that we should follow the golden rule that all religions have in common.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)